For over a decade, mixed-use, multi-family residential developments have been the defining building type around Northern Virginia. A recent presentation about redevelopment at the Hunters Branch office complex in Oakton, however, indicated that type of development may be in peril.
The Fairfax County Planning Commission recommended on March 12 that the Board of Supervisors approve a comprehensive plan amendment to allow housing on the nearly 14-acre office campus at 9300 and 9302 Route 29.
The commission and a staff report both expressed enthusiasm for a proposal — called option A — that would replace the existing, mostly vacant offices with two multi-family buildings, totaling 800 units, but a representative of the property owner doused some of those hopes.
Scott Adams, a land use and real estate partner with McGuireWoods, said the developers are more likely to pursue an option B that would instead construct one multi-family building with 450 units and 76 stacked townhouses. This plan would result in lower density at a total of 546 units.
“We’re excited about everybody coming together on a vision for the site moving forward,” Adams said. “It’s a challenging site, it’s suffered from long-time vacancy — not only this site, but this submarket is really struggling for office.”
Adams said the property owner had considered retaining office uses on the site or keeping the office building intact and converting it to residential, but ultimately found that neither option is feasible.
“These existing buildings are not good candidates for repurposing,” Adams said. “Bringing them up to a place where you could convert them to residential would require significant changes to the structure, including cutting through the core of the building. This resulted in substandard units once you make those changes to the building.”
Much to the chagrin of the planning commissioners, Adams said “economic issues” preclude the denser, high-rise residential development initially proposed by property owners BCSP Hunters Branch Fee and BCSP Hunters Branch Lessee (BCSP), who nominated the site for a comprehensive plan amendment in 2022.
“We’ve been focused on option B,” Adams said. “There are economic issues with developing multifamily right now. If the client could figure out a way to carry forward with option A they would do that, but in the current environment, they have not been able to figure out a way forward with that.”
Adams said labor and material costs along with interest rates have all been going up for construction, which makes building multi-family residential a riskier bet.
Tariffs on lumber, steel and other materials might also put a damper on the market for new housing.
“Equity and capital funding for multi-family projects has been difficult, more constrained,” Adams explained. “For two-over-two townhouses, I think you’ve probably seen a lot of those projects come forward, there’s a really strong demand for those uses and it’s easier to get those uses financed.”
According to Adams, having single-family townhouses on the site is a safer bet that will make it easier for the developer to get the multi-family housing financed.
The planning commission wasn’t thrilled about this outcome, particularly after the staff report noted the project’s close proximity (a five-minute walk) to the Vienna Metro Station.
“There’s a differential of about 300-plus units between option A and option B,” Commission Chair Phil Niedzielski-Eichner noted. “There’s a lot to be said for the diversity of housing product, a lot to be said for the ownership of a two-over-two townhome, but we suffer from a shortage of housing.”
Niedzielski-Eichner said the project’s reduced density is a particularly bitter pill to swallow given that the area has been identified in county planning as prime for high-density development. Fairfax County recently approved plans for two other Oakton developments, and a third rezoning proposal in the same area is under review.
“I don’t think it’s a choice between 800 units of multifamily or 400 units of multifamily and 76 two-over-twos,” Adams responded. “It’s between 400 multifamily and 76 two-over-twos or essentially zero housing because we wouldn’t be able to move forward with the project.”
The plan amendment was unanimously supported by the planning commission with a few modifications, including improvements to the streetscape and lighting. The commission also lightly scolded the applicant for its approach to the development proposal.
“If this was an outside investor looking to maximize profit over quality of housing, I’d have a real problem with the way in which this nomination has come forward, particularly having two options presented while having all the appearance of having only one option seriously considered,” Niedzielski-Eichner said.
The plan amendment is scheduled for a public hearing before the Board of Supervisors on May 13.
Building screenshot via Google Maps
